9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue raised by the assessee is that the learned PCIT erred in holding the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue and directing to make addition of Rs. 1,68,34,500.00 under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. 3. The necessary facts are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and has filed his return of income declaring income from the source of finance, house property, salary, and other sources. The assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act wherein an addition of Rs. 2,50,680.00 was made to the total income of the assessee on account of the disallowance of interest expenses. 3.1 However, the learned PCIT on examination of the assessment re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lized through book entries and banking system is required be added back to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The AO is also directed to initiate the penalty proceedings u/s 271(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The learned AR before us filed paper book running from pages 1 to 61 and contended that the assessment has been framed by the AO after necessary application of mind and thereafter the AO has taken one of the plausible views. Therefore, the assessment cannot be held as erroneous insofar judicial to the interest of revenue. 6. Furthermore, all the necessary enquiries from the brokers an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we restore this case the file of Pr.CIT for deciding de novo after examination of details to be submitte by the assessee and after affording adequate opportunity of being heard." 8.1 It is pertinent to note that the Kolkata ITAT in the case of Smt. Minu Gupta Vs. ITO in ITA No. 731/Kol/2018 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee with respect to the script i.e. NCL RESEARCH which is also in dispute before us. As per the direction of the ITAT, the learned PCIT was expected to decide the issue in the light of the principles/ ratio laid down by the Kolkata ITAT in the case of Smt. Minu Gupta. Admittedly, the learned PCIT has distinguished the facts of the case of Smt. Minu Gupta by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rly, M/s Jainam Share Consultant Pvt Ltd vide its reply dated 17.03.2022 (received through mail on 17.03 2022) has also confirmed that the assessee has sold 4,500 shares @Rs 1548.34 (after deducting taxes and brokerage) 19.03.2013 and the same was reflected in the pool account of the broker. In addition to this, the BSE Ltd. has also confirmed the above transactions through mail vide e-mail dated 22.03.2022 and has also provided all the details regarding the said share transactions carried out by the assessee. On perusal of details submitted by the assessee, it is found that the assessee has paid Rs. 10,00,000/- to M/s Kunvarji Finstock Pvt Ltd on 29.03.2011 through his bank account No. 01220102750 with Kalupur Commercial Cooperative Bank a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e kindly state about the applicability of Section 14A of the I.T Act. 8.5 The assessee in response to such notice vide letter dated 20 October 2015 and 28-10-2015 has submitted as under: Details of Exempt income (Sr. No.18) Your good selves have asked the assessee to submit details of exempt income earned during the year under consideration and particulars of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. In this connection the assessee submit herewith a table giving the particulars of exempt income as under: Sr. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1 Share of Profit from Partnership firm - M/s Abajibapa Developers 5,26,285 2 Long Term Capital Gain exempt under section 10(38) of the IT Act. 1,57,91,326 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s taken a view that for any purchase or sale of a land, assessee is liable to pay the capital gains tax and the Commissioner has taken a different view. In view of the authority in Malabar Industrial Company Limited, merely because two plausible views are available and the Assessing Officer has taken one view, the jurisdiction under section 263 of the IT Act cannot be exercised. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that invoking section 263 of the IT Act in the facts and circumstances of the case was erroneous. 8.7 In view of the above and after considering the facts in total, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the assessment order requiring the revision under the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
